↓ Skip to main content

Factors affecting evidence-use in food policy-making processes in health and agriculture in Fiji

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors affecting evidence-use in food policy-making processes in health and agriculture in Fiji
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3944-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gade Waqa, Colin Bell, Wendy Snowdon, Marj Moodie

Abstract

There is limited research on the use of evidence to inform policy-making in the Pacific. This study aims to identify and describe factors that facilitate or limit the use of evidence in food-related policy-making in the Health and Agriculture Ministries in Fiji. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with selected policy-makers in two government ministries that were instrumental in the development of food-related policies in Fiji designed to prevent Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). Snowball sampling was used to recruit, as key informants, senior policy-makers in management positions such as national advisors and directors who were based at either the national headquarters or equivalent. Interviewees were asked about their experiences in developing food-related or other policies, barriers or facilitators encountered in the policy development and implementation process and the use of evidence. Each interview lasted approximately 45-60 minutes, and was conducted in English. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, thematically coded and analyzed using N-Vivo 8.0 software. Thirty-one policy-makers from the Ministry of Health and Medical Services (MoHMS n = 18) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA n = 13) in Fiji participated in the study. Whilst evidence is sometimes used in food-related policy-making in both the Health and Agriculture Ministries (including formal evidence such as published research and informal evidence such as personal experiences and opinions), it is not yet embedded as an essential part of the process. Participants indicated that a lack of resources, poor technical support in terms of training, the absence of clear strategies for improving competent use of evidence, procedures regarding engagement with other stakeholders across sectors, varying support from senior managers and limited consultation across sectors were barriers to evidence use. The willingness of organizations to create a culture of using evidence was reported as a facilitator. The use of evidence in policy-making will only become a reality in Fiji if it is a formalized part of the government's policy-making systems. A systems approach to food-related policy-making and implementation may achieve this by helping Ministries manage the complex and dynamic nature of food-related policy-making in Fiji.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 30 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Social Sciences 10 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 29 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2021.
All research outputs
#4,161,071
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,680
of 14,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,058
of 421,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#73
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.